Should Ohio change the way it picks its judges?

If you're like most people, you've stood in the privacy of a voting booth and wondered: Who are these people running for judge? And how am I supposed to know who to choose?

Judges have incredible influence - they sentence criminals, award injury settlements and decide political fights - but choosing them is a low priority for many voters. When there are judicial races on the ballot, about one-quarter of all voters simply skip them; in Cuyahoga County last year, 40 percent of voters quit the ballot before they reached the judicial elections. Those who do vote often choose the candidate based solely on party affiliation, and even the ethnicity or familiarity of a candidate's surname can help or hurt.

There are other problems with the way we choose judges. Three in every four Americans think campaign donations influence decisions made in the courtroom. Perhaps more alarmingly, almost half of all state judges agree. Nine in 10 Americans think judges shouldn't hear cases involving campaign supporters, even though in most states they are permitted to. And then there's the unseemliness of having a judge stump for cash and votes. Candidates running for other offices are expected to adhere to specific platforms and ideologies, but judges ideally should be beholden only to the law.

While legal observers lament the situation, officials in other states are trying to reform their systems - including Ohio, where Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor is seeking support for her reform plan.

O'Connor's plan can be found at www.ohiocourts2013.org. It includes the following:

Move judicial elections to odd-numbered years.

Right now, most judges' races compete with contests for president, U.S. Senate and House, and other prominent elections and referendums. That often means many contests crowding the ballot, and since judicial races appear last, voters pay less attention to them. O'Connor proposes moving races to odd-numbered years, where they would share the ballot with municipal and school-board races. Those contests attract fewer voters, but the voters who show up for them tend to know more about the candidates and issues.

Eliminate party affiliation on primary ballots.

Some states list whether judicial candidates are Republicans or Democrats, others don't. But Ohio is the only state that lists party affiliation in the primary but not in the general election. It's an odd configuration that defies reason. O'Connor proposes eliminating all mention of partisan affiliation on the ballot, since it suggests allegiance to a political party rather than the law.

Get judicial recommendations from a non-partisan board.

More than half of Ohio's judges are appointed by the governor to fill vacancies. Thirty-eight states have some form of a nominating commission to recommend candidates to fill vacancies. Cuyahoga County in Ohio has such a commission and Gov. Kasich and his predecessor, Ted Strickland, have used its recommendations in making appointments.

Increase the qualifications for serving as judge.

Right now an attorney needs to have six years of experience practicing law in Ohio to become a judge. In other states the qualifications range from no required experience to 10 years. O'Connor suggests raising the required experience for commons pleas, appellate and Supreme Court seats while keeping the six-year requirement for municipal and county court judges.

Increase the length of judges' terms.

Just as the city of Cincinnati recently voted to allow council members to serve four-year terms instead of two, this change would allow judges more time on the bench before they face the pressures of re-election. All judges in Ohio serve six-year terms. A 2003 conference on strengthening Ohio's judiciary proposed eight-year terms for county and part-time municipal judges, 10 years for common pleas and full-time municipal court judges, and 12 years for appellate and Supreme Court judges.

Randomize the order of races on ballots.

Now, judicial elections appear last on the ballot, likely contributing to the number of voters who skip them. Ballots currently randomize the order of candidates' names within races to eliminate the advantage of appearing first. They could randomize the order of races so that judicial contests appeared at the top of and in the middle of some ballots.

Create a judicial voter guide and expand education.

Let's face it, citizens' knowledge of the judiciary is pathetic. A 2003 poll by the League of Women Voters found less than 4 percent of Ohioans could name even one justice on the Ohio Supreme Court. Another poll found that two-thirds of Americans couldn't name a single U.S. Supreme Court justice, and only one percent could name all nine. To combat this level of ignorance, O'Connor proposes a statewide voter guide, perhaps televised debates between judicial candidates, and the idea of expanding the use of cameras in the courtroom. By increasing transparency and access to information, voters may be better informed when they enter the booth.

Require Ohio Senate approval for state Supreme Court appointments.

The governor is permitted to appoint judges to the Supreme Court when there is a vacancy. Requiring approval from the state Senate would help remove the potential appearance of politics from such appointments. O'Connor proposes time limits on the approval process so that reviews aren't drawn out the way U.S. Senate approval of appointments to the federal bench can be.

While O'Connor's recommendations provide a coherent strategy for improving elections, they don't address the perception that donations to judicial campaigns taint the administration of justice. There is research to back up such suspicions; several studies have found that judges approaching re-election give longer sentences and more death sentences than other judges. One 2004 study of criminal cases in Pennsylvania found that sentencing becomes more punitive as elections draw near. Another, conducted in 2008, found that judges who are elected are more likely to uphold the death penalty than judges who are appointed, while a third suggested that Alabama judges were more likely to impose the death penalty in election years.

Professional associations and high-profile jurists such as retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor advocate for judges to be chosen by impartial panels of both attorneys and non-attorneys. That would reduce the influence of money and encourage candidates who have qualifications but not the stomach to campaign. Some states appoint judges, then require them to stand for retention elections so the public has a chance to vote them out.

To combat the perception that campaign donations influence judges' decisions, Ohio has restrictions on how and when candidates for the bench can raise campaign funds. Requests must be within 120 days of the election, for instance, and there must be at least 20 people in a room when a candidate makes a request.

Public financing of campaigns would be another way of reducing the politics of judicial elections.

But there's no indication that those kinds of reforms stand any chance of succeeding in Ohio. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case makes unlikely any meaningful restrictions on campaign donations. And in 1987 Ohio voters rejected by a 2-to-1 margin a measure to appoint appellate judges. The measure was supported by the Ohio State Bar Association, the League of Women Voters of Ohio, and the insurance and business communities. Opponents included the Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers, the Ohio AFL-CIO, and the state Democratic and Republican parties.

O'Connor thinks now is the perfect time for Ohio to pursue reforms. The lull between presidential elections provides an opportunity to discuss reform in a less partisan environment, and the work of several statewide groups has laid the groundwork for changes.

We support her proposals and urge lawmakers, judges and others to build on the momentum of O'Connor's efforts. Candidates for the bench deserve informed, engaged voters. Those affected by judicial decisions - which is to say, all of us - do too.

- Cincinnati Enquirer

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Should Ohio change the way it picks its judges?

If you're like most people, you've stood in the privacy of a voting booth and wondered: Who are these people running for judge? And how am I supposed to know who to choose?